On 3/21/25 8:30 AM, Todd Herr wrote:
On Fri, Mar 21, 2025 at 11:17 AM Michael Thomas <m...@mtcc.com> wrote:
I really don't know why we should presume it's something
completely different wrt DMARC. Why would it be? I'm not really
sure what the point is of bringing it up at this point in any
case. Why do we need an answer for this now?
I am presuming nothing.
When I said, "we", I literally meant "we".
I am asking a question about what I believe to currently be one
possible outcome of this group's work, based both on the content of
the documents that entered "call for adoption" state in the last 12
hours and the meeting itself from last night (US/ET).
I haven't seen the transcript of the meeting -- I screwed up with time
zones -- so I have no idea what was "called for adoption".
The point of my asking the question is to inform my own understanding
(and perhaps the understanding of others who may be reading) of the
possible consequences of that possible outcome so that those so
informed might more effectively participate in ongoing and future
discussions regarding this working group's work.
Assuming that what was "called for adoption" was the "motivation" draft,
I think it's *way* premature to presume much if anything about solution
space, and especially anything about its relationship with DMARC. The
charter, otoh, is pretty clear that if liaison is needed that that will
be done.
Again, I'm not sure why anything needs to be considered now. We should
seriously not get ahead of ourselves.
Mike
_______________________________________________
Ietf-dkim mailing list -- ietf-dkim@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to ietf-dkim-le...@ietf.org
